He studied (among other things) psychiatry in university (this was his prof), and worked in psychiatry before opening his solo practice. His doctoral thesis and main focus in studies was neurophysiology, though, it’s Jung who was a full-blown psychiatrist. Adler was first ophthalmologist, then GP, getting into the psyche way later in his career.
Psychiatry as in the western discipline is way older, dates back to the enlightenment when people started to consider other possibilities for things like epilepsy and schizophrenia than people getting punished by god. The name itself is a bit older but the turn towards an at least half-way modern approach started with William Battie. 80 years dead when Freud was born.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says. On top of that you’re diminishing the role he’s traditionally ascribed in the history of the subject.
Pick a lane because you’re going further than I am.
You call his ideas “subjective” like I do. That discredits them. Using subjective or unprovable medical treatments is the definition of quakery.
You also deny his historical impact on the things we do today that matter, psychiatry.
So we seem to be in agreement on Freud.
You seem to want to defend quakery in general in order to defend Freud.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says.
The ideas have been widely worked into all kinds of theories. Some verbatim, some changed, some completely reformulated.
Are you aware that you can’t use the word “unconscious” without referring to Freud? There’s no more and no less objective proof of it than for consciousness. Call it quackery all you want all you’re saying with that is that you’d rather be unaware of it, would prefer those ideas to never have seen the light of day so that today, you wouldn’t have to face them.
…and this is where I feared we’d end: With me starting to psychoanalyse you. There’s no way out of this without that because to understand, you’d first have to understand a bit or two about yourself. Which is why I’m out because I have better things to do. There’s resources out there, use them, or not, not my business.
The idea that consciousness is a Freudian invention is patiently false.
"The earliest known use of the word unconscious is in the late 1600s.
OED’s earliest evidence for unconscious is from 1678, in T. Hobbes’ De Mirabilibus Pecci."
You’re just making stuff up now. Which I suppose someone defending quackery will do.
You can try to psychoanalyse me all you like, but you’d probably be better off using a psychic to help. A psychic will be able to tell you more things.
As you don’t care if the things you make up about me are right or not you might as well go for volume.
Of Infants unregenerate it flyes.
(Unconscious of its fault which tortur’d cryes)
“unconscious of” is not the same idea, concept, as “the unconscious”. If you do ad-hoc research please at least do it properly that took like two seconds to find.
The rough concept existed before Freud, yes, you can trace it back to the likes of Schopenhauer, but our current understanding very much is exactly Freudian. In particular, of the conscious as something that’s structured, which distinguishes it e.g. from the Buddhist (much older) formless.
You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.
So now the person back-tracking on their “facts” is claiming others should do better research.
I’m not back-tracking. If you say “unconscious”, obviously in the sense of “the unconscious”, you’re referring to Freud.
Same as when you say “Vulcan” you’re referring to Gene Roddenberry, not Urbain Le Verrier.
Your first instinct was to attack the messenger, not the message.
My brother or sister in Discord I’ve been attacking the message for literally at least ten comments before I went personal. I can’t even make sense of it as you can’t even tell me what you think is actually bunk about Freud. All I’m seeing is “has been discredited”, without elaboration, and that reeks of “no I don’t want to look there”: You’re not even bothering to figure out what you disagree with.
Fine, don’t, for all I care. But if you don’t want to, why are you so invested in this thread. Is that a question you can answer?
Can you expand on what you mean by “a lot of stuff”? Anything particular come to mind?
Or are you expecting me to defend everything he said whole-sale? Which I wouldn’t, because there’s aspects which he got wrong, heck I agree with e.g. all of Adler’s and Jung’s critiques of Freud. I disagree with all of them on Hypnosis.
Why?
In a nutshell? Because it’s nonsensical. If you throw out all of Freud modern psychiatry, psychology, psycho-anything, loses very core theoretical aspects. If you throw out all his therapeutic approaches, you’re throwing out evidence-based treatments.
He studied (among other things) psychiatry in university (this was his prof), and worked in psychiatry before opening his solo practice. His doctoral thesis and main focus in studies was neurophysiology, though, it’s Jung who was a full-blown psychiatrist. Adler was first ophthalmologist, then GP, getting into the psyche way later in his career.
Psychiatry as in the western discipline is way older, dates back to the enlightenment when people started to consider other possibilities for things like epilepsy and schizophrenia than people getting punished by god. The name itself is a bit older but the turn towards an at least half-way modern approach started with William Battie. 80 years dead when Freud was born.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says. On top of that you’re diminishing the role he’s traditionally ascribed in the history of the subject.
Pick a lane because you’re going further than I am.
You call his ideas “subjective” like I do. That discredits them. Using subjective or unprovable medical treatments is the definition of quakery.
You also deny his historical impact on the things we do today that matter, psychiatry.
So we seem to be in agreement on Freud.
You seem to want to defend quakery in general in order to defend Freud.
The ideas have been widely worked into all kinds of theories. Some verbatim, some changed, some completely reformulated.
Are you aware that you can’t use the word “unconscious” without referring to Freud? There’s no more and no less objective proof of it than for consciousness. Call it quackery all you want all you’re saying with that is that you’d rather be unaware of it, would prefer those ideas to never have seen the light of day so that today, you wouldn’t have to face them.
…and this is where I feared we’d end: With me starting to psychoanalyse you. There’s no way out of this without that because to understand, you’d first have to understand a bit or two about yourself. Which is why I’m out because I have better things to do. There’s resources out there, use them, or not, not my business.
The idea that consciousness is a Freudian invention is patiently false.
"The earliest known use of the word unconscious is in the late 1600s.
OED’s earliest evidence for unconscious is from 1678, in T. Hobbes’ De Mirabilibus Pecci."
You’re just making stuff up now. Which I suppose someone defending quackery will do.
You can try to psychoanalyse me all you like, but you’d probably be better off using a psychic to help. A psychic will be able to tell you more things.
As you don’t care if the things you make up about me are right or not you might as well go for volume.
“unconscious of” is not the same idea, concept, as “the unconscious”. If you do ad-hoc research please at least do it properly that took like two seconds to find.
The rough concept existed before Freud, yes, you can trace it back to the likes of Schopenhauer, but our current understanding very much is exactly Freudian. In particular, of the conscious as something that’s structured, which distinguishes it e.g. from the Buddhist (much older) formless.
You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.
So now the person back-tracking on their “facts” is claiming others should do better research.
I said you were wrong and you were wrong. So I guess this is where we find out whether you care about objectivity.
Are you going to shift your opinion any iota’s to match the facts?
“You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.”
Your first instinct was to attack the messenger, not the message. But feel free to take a second stab at it.
I’m not back-tracking. If you say “unconscious”, obviously in the sense of “the unconscious”, you’re referring to Freud.
Same as when you say “Vulcan” you’re referring to Gene Roddenberry, not Urbain Le Verrier.
My brother or sister in Discord I’ve been attacking the message for literally at least ten comments before I went personal. I can’t even make sense of it as you can’t even tell me what you think is actually bunk about Freud. All I’m seeing is “has been discredited”, without elaboration, and that reeks of “no I don’t want to look there”: You’re not even bothering to figure out what you disagree with.
Fine, don’t, for all I care. But if you don’t want to, why are you so invested in this thread. Is that a question you can answer?
Freud was wrong about a lot of stuff.
You disagree. Very strongly.
Why?
Can you expand on what you mean by “a lot of stuff”? Anything particular come to mind?
Or are you expecting me to defend everything he said whole-sale? Which I wouldn’t, because there’s aspects which he got wrong, heck I agree with e.g. all of Adler’s and Jung’s critiques of Freud. I disagree with all of them on Hypnosis.
In a nutshell? Because it’s nonsensical. If you throw out all of Freud modern psychiatry, psychology, psycho-anything, loses very core theoretical aspects. If you throw out all his therapeutic approaches, you’re throwing out evidence-based treatments.